Of 31 sports, GB finished on the podium in 19 – a strike rate of just over 61%. That percentage is even better if you remove the six sports – basketball, football, handball, volleyball, water polo and wrestling – Britain were not represented in. Then it jumps to 76%. The United States won medals in 22 sports, including 16 swimming golds. In terms of golds, GB were way ahead of the pack, finishing with at least one in 15 sports, more than any other country, even the United States. GB dominated track cycling, winning six of 10 disciplines and collecting 11 medals in total, nine more than the Dutch and Germans in joint second. GB also topped the rowing table, with three golds – one more than Germany and New Zealand – and were third in gymnastics, behind the US and Russia.BBC

On July 14th an index of “soft power”—the ability to coax and persuade—ranked Britain as the mightiest country on Earth. If that was unexpected, there was another surprise in store at the foot of the 30-country index: China, four times as wealthy as Britain, 20 times as populous and 40 times as large, came dead last. (…) Britain scored highly in its “engagement” with the world, its citizens enjoying visa-free travel to 174 countries—the joint-highest of any nation—and its diplomats staffing the largest number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations, tied with France. Britain’s cultural power was also highly rated: though its tally of 29 UNESCO World Heritage sites is fairly ordinary, Britain produces more internationally chart-topping music albums than any other country, and the foreign following of its football is in a league of its own (even if its national teams are not). It did well in education, too—not because of its schools, which are fairly mediocre, but because its universities are second only to America’s, attracting vast numbers of foreign students.(…) Governance was the category that sank undemocratic China, whose last place was sealed by a section dedicated to digital soft-power—tricky to cultivate in a country that restricts access to the web. (…) But many of the assets that pushed Britain to the top of the soft-power table are in play. In the next couple of years the country faces a referendum on its membership of the EU; a slimmer role for the BBC, its prolific public broadcaster; and a continuing squeeze on immigration, which has already made its universities less attractive to foreign students. Much of Britain’s hard power was long ago given up. Its soft power endures—for now. The Economist

Although beaten to the top spot in this year’s index, the UK continues to boast significant advantages in its soft power resources. These include the significant role that continues to be played by both state-backed assets (i.e. BBC World Service, DfID, FCO and British Council) and private assets and global brands (e.g. Burberry and British Airways). Additionally, the British Council, institutions like the British Museum, and the UK’s higher education system are all pillars of British soft power. The UK’s rich civil society and charitable sector further contribute to British soft power. Major global organisations that contribute to development, disaster relief, and human rights reforms like Oxfam, Save the Children, and Amnesty International are key components in the UK’s overall ability to contribute to the global good – whether through the state, private citizens, or a network of diverse actors. The UK’s unique and enviable position at the heart of a number of important global networks and multi-lateral organisations continues to confer a significant soft power advantage. As a member of the G-7, G-20, UN Security Council, European Union, and the Commonwealth, Britain has a seat at virtually every international table of consequence. No other country rivals the UK’s diverse range of memberships in the world’s most influential organisations. In this context, a risk exists that the UK’s considerable soft power clout would be significantly diminished should it vote to leave the European Union.The soft power 30

The United States takes the top spot of the 2016 Soft Power 30, beating out last year’s first-place finisher, the United Kingdom. America topping the rankings this year is perhaps a strange juxtaposition to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, currently threatening to tear up long-held, bi-partisan principles of American foreign policy – like ending the US’s stated commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. On the other hand, President Obama’s final year as Commander-in-Chief has been a busy one for diplomatic initiatives. The President managed to complete his long-sought Iran Nuclear Deal, made progress on negotiating free trade agreements with partners across the Oceans Atlantic and Pacific, and re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba after decades of trying to isolate the Communist Caribbean Island. These major soft power plays have paid dividends for perceptions of the US abroad, as it finished higher in the international polling this year, compared to 2015. Perhaps not dragged down as much by attitudes to its foreign policy, the US’s major pillars of soft power have been free to shine, as measured in our Digital, Education, and Culture sub-indices. The US is home to the biggest digital platforms in the world, including Facebook, Twitter, and WhatsApp, and the US State Department sets the global pace on digital diplomacy. Likewise, the US maintains its top ranking in the Culture and Education sub-indices this year. The US welcomed over 74 million international tourists last year, many of whom are attracted by America’s cultural outputs that are seemingly omnipresent around the globe. In terms of education, the US has more universities in the global top 200 than any other country in the world, which allows it to attract more international students than any other country – by some margin as well. (…) Home to many of the biggest tech brands in the world, the US is the global leader in digital technology and innovation. The Obama Administration and State Department developed the theory and practice of online-driven campaigning and ‘digital diplomacy’. The way the US has developed and leveraged digital diplomacy, gives the nation a significant soft power boost. (…) It’s not just foreign policy that can drag down the image of America. Regular news stories of police brutality, racial tension, gun violence, and a high homicide rate (compared to other developed countries) all remind the world that America has its faults on the home front too. Speaking of which, the forthcoming Presidential election will have leaders in a lot of world capitals nervous at prospect of a Trump presidency. The soft power 30

With nearly 84 million tourists arriving annually, France maintains the title of the world’s most visited country. Yet while the strength of its cultural assets – the Louvre, its cuisine, the Riviera – have helped it hold onto this title, the country remains vulnerable. In the last year, France made headlines for the horrific terror attacks that shook its capital. Since the beginning of his mandate, President François Hollande has struggled to revitalise the French economy. Unemployment has risen steadily, and businesses are weary of France’s seemingly over-regulated and overprotective market. Its “new-blood” Minister of the Economy, Emmanuel Macron, is labouring to shake things up. His newly announced political movement, En Marche! (Forward) hopes to break party lines and revive the Eurozone’s second largest economy. Only time can tell if the initiative will pay dividends. Until then, France can still count on its unequalled diplomatic prowess to safeguard its position near the top of the Soft Power 30. It remains a global diplomatic force, asserting its presence through one of the most extensive Embassy networks. (…) France’s soft power strengths lie in a unique blend of culture and diplomacy. It enjoys, for historic reasons, links to territories across the planet, making it the only nation with 12 time zones. Its network of cultural institutions, linguistic union “la Francophonie” and network of embassies allow it to engage like no other. Its top rank in the Engagement sub-index comes as no surprise. (…) France continues to struggle as a result of the global financial crisis and President Hollande’s failure to lift the nation’s economic competitiveness has delayed its full recovery. Germany’s economy, in comparison, makes France look in need of reform.The soft power 30

Great Britain is « one of the superpowers of Olympic sport » after its performance in Rio, according to UK Sport chief executive Liz Nicholl.

A total of 67 medals with 27 golds put Team GB second in the medal table – above China for the first time since it returned to the Games in 1984.

« It shows we are a force to be reckoned with in world sport, » Nicholl said.

Britain is the first country to improve on a home medal haul at the next Games, beating the 65 medals from London 2012.

They won gold medals across more sports than any other nation – 15 – and improved on their medal haul for the fifth consecutive Olympics.

The Queen offered her « warmest congratulations » for an « outstanding performance » in Rio, while the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry said the team were an « inspiration to us all, young and old ».

The money behind the medals

UK Sport is the body responsible for distributing funds from national government to Olympic sports.

Team GB’s 67 medals in Brazil cost an average of just over £4m per medal in lottery and exchequer funding over the past four years – a reported cost of £1.09 per year for each Briton.

Nicholl added: « Half of the investment that we’re putting into Rio success also feeds into Tokyo [2020 Olympics]. We’re very confident that we’ve got a system here that’s working and that’s quite exceptional around the world. »

Chief executive of British Gymnastics Jane Allen told BBC Radio 5 live: « You wouldn’t want to be in some of the other countries at the moment, who are examining themselves.

« UK Sport has made those sports that receive the funding be accountable for their results. This is the end result in Rio – the country should expect a return for their investment, it is incredible. »

« When you get into the [Olympic] village there’s been a real collective team spirit around Team GB – you just got a sense that this was a team that wanted to do something really special. »

Britain had been set a target by UK Sport to make Rio its most successful ‘away’ Olympics by beating the 47 medals from Beijing in 2008, but Nicholl said there had been an « aspirational » aim to surpass the achievements of London 2012.

Sweeney said he « wasn’t surprised » by the extent of the success, but that beating China « wasn’t on the radar » before the Games.

« China are a massive nation, aren’t they? Goodness knows how much money they spend on it, » he said.

« To be able to beat them is absolutely fantastic.

Sweeney said it would be difficult for Britain to replicate their position in the medal table at Tokyo 2020, at which he predicted hosts Japan, China, Russia and Australia would all improve.

How has China reacted?

China did top one table in Rio – that of fourth-place finishes, according to data from Gracenote Sports.

They had 25, with the US next on 20 and Britain third on 16.

Gracenote head of analysis Simon Gleave said China’s decline in medals from London 2012 « has been primarily due to the sports of badminton, artistic gymnastics and swimming ».

China Daily said: « In contrast with China’s previous obsession with gold medals, the general public is learning to enjoy the sports themselves rather than focusing on the medal count. Winning gold medals does not mean everything anymore in China. »

Swimmer Fu Yuanhui’s enthusiasm at winning a bronze medal « took Chinese viewers by surprise », said Global Times. « They are used to their athletes focusing in interviews on their desire to win glory for the country. »

Many users of the Chinese social media site Weibo posted messages using the hashtag #ThisTimeTheChinaTeamAreGolden, saying their athletes were still « the best » irrespective of their placing in their events.

It has been an Olympic fiesta like never before for Britain: their best medal haul in 108 years, second in the medal table, the only host nation to go on to win more medals at the next Olympics.

Never before has a Briton won a diving gold. Never before has a Briton won a gymnastics gold. There have been champions across 15 different sports, a spread no other country can get close to touching.

It enabled Liz Nicholl, chief executive of UK Sport, the body responsible for distributing funds from national government to Olympic sports, to declare on the final day of competition in Rio that Britain was now a « sporting superpower ».

Only 20 years ago, GB were languishing 36th in the Atlanta Olympics medal table, their entire team securing only a single gold between them. This is the story of a remarkable transformation.

Biased judges or gracious defeat? What China thinks of GB going second
‘Superpower’ Team GB a ‘world force’

Money talks

As that nadir was being reached back in 1996, the most pivotal change of all had already taken place.

The advent of the National Lottery in 1994, and the decision of John Major’s struggling government to allocate significant streams of its revenue to elite Olympic sport, set in motion a funding spree unprecedented in British sport.

From just £5m per year before Atlanta, UK Sport’s spending leapt to £54m by Sydney 2000, where Britain won 28 medals to leap to 10th on the medal table. By the time of London 2012 – third in the medal table, 65 medals – that had climbed to £264m. Between 2013 and 2017, almost £350m in public funds will have been lavished on Olympic and Paralympic sports.

It has reinvigorated some sports and altered others beyond recognition.

Gymnastics, given nothing at all before Atlanta, received £5.9m for Sydney and £14.6m in the current cycle. In Rio, Max Whitlock won two gymnastics golds; his team-mates delivered another silver and three bronzes.

As a talented teenage swimmer, Adam Peaty relied on fundraising events laid on by family and friends to pay for his travel and training costs. That changed in 2012, when he was awarded a grant of £15,000 and his coach placed on an elite coaching programme. In Rio he became the first British male to win a swimming gold in 28 years.

There are ethical and economic debates raised by this maximum sum game. Team GB’s 67 medals won here in Brazil cost an average of £4,096,500 each in lottery and exchequer funding over the past four years.
Average cost of Games to each Briton
As determined by the Sport Industry Research Centre

At a time of austerity, that is profligate to some. To others, the average cost of this Olympic programme to each Briton – a reported £1.09 per year – represents extraordinary financial and emotional value. Joe Joyce’s super-heavyweight silver medal on Sunday was the 700th Olympic and Paralympic medal won by his nation since lottery funding came on tap.

« The funding is worth its weight in gold, » says Nicholl.

« It enables us to strategically plan for the next Games even before this one has started and makes sure we don’t lose any time. We can maintain the momentum of success for every athlete with medal potential through to the next Games. »

All in the detail

The idea of marginal gains has gone from novelty to cliche over the past three Olympic cycles, but three examples from Rio underline how essential to British success it remains.

In the build-up to these Olympics, a PhD student at the English Institute of Sport named Luke Gupta examined the sleep quality of more than 400 elite GB athletes, looking at the duration of their average sleep, issues around deprivation and then individual athletes’ perception of their sleep quality.

His findings resulted in an upgrading of the ‘sleep environment’ in the Team GB boxing training base in Sheffield – 37 single beds replaced by 33 double and four extra-long singles; sheets, duvets and pillows switched to breathable, quick drying fabrics; materials selected to create a hypo-allergenic barrier to allergens in each bedroom.

« On average, the boxers are sleeping for 24 minutes longer each night, » says former Olympic bronze medallist and now consultant coach Richie Woodhall.

« When you add it up over the course of a cycle it could be as much as 29 or 30 days’ extra sleep. That can be the difference between winning a medal or going out in the first round. »

In track cycling, GB physio Phil Burt and team doctor Richard Freeman realised saddle sores were keeping some female riders out of training.

Their response? To bring together a panel of experts – friction specialist, reconstructive surgeons, a consultant in vulval health – to advise on the waxing and shaving of pubic hair. In the six months before Rio not a single rider complained of saddle sores.

Then there is the lateral thinking of Danny Kerry, performance director to the Great Britain women’s hockey team that won gold in such spectacular fashion on Friday.

« Everyone puts a lot of time into the physiological effects of hockey, but what we’ve done in this Olympic cycle is put our players in an extremely fatigued state, and then ask them to think very hard at the same time, » Kerry told BBC Sport.

« We call that Thinking Thursday – forcing them to consistently make excellent decisions under that fatigue. We’ve done that every Thursday for a year. »

Britain won that gold on a penalty shootout, standing firm as their Dutch opponents, clear favourites for gold, missed every one of their four attempts.
Virtuous circles

Success has bred British success.

That hockey team featured Helen and Kate Richardson-Walsh, in their fifth Olympic cycle, mentoring 21-year-old Lily Owsley, who scored the first goal in the final. A squad that won bronze in London were ready to go two better in Brazil.

« We’ve retained eight players who had medals around their necks already, » says Kerry. « We added another eight who have no fear.

« It gave us a great combination of those who know what it’s all about, and those who have no concept at all of what it’s all about, and have just gone out and played in ruthless fashion.

« We get carried away with some of the hard science around sport, but there’s so much value in how you use characters and how you bring those qualities and traits to the fore. You see that on the pitch. Leverage on the human beings as much as the science. »

In the velodrome, experience and expertise is being recycled with each successive Games.

Paul Manning was part of the team pursuit quartet that won bronze in Sydney, silver in Athens and gold in Beijing. As his riding career came towards the end, he was one of the first to graduate through the Elite Coaching Apprenticeship Programme, a two-year scheme that offered an accelerated route into high-performance coaching for athletes already in British Cycling’s system.

In Rio he coached the women’s pursuit team to their second gold in two Olympics, his young charge Laura Trott also winning omnium gold for the second Games in a row.

Then there is Heiko Salzwedel, head of the men’s endurance squad, back for his third spell with British Cycling having worked under the visionary Peter Keen from 2000 to 2002 and then Sir Dave Brailsford between 2008 and 2010.

Expertise developed, expertise retained. A culture where winning is expected, not just hoped for.

« We have got the talent in this country and we know that we can recruit and keep the very best coaches, sports scientists and sports medics, » says Nicholl.

« It is now a system that provides the very best support for that talent. »

Competitive advantages

Funding has not flowed to all British sports equally, because in some there is a greater chance of success than others.

On Lagoa Rodrigo de Freitas, Britain’s rowers dominated the regatta, winning three gold medals and two silvers.

With 43 athletes they also had the biggest team of any nation there. Forty-nine of the nations there qualified teams of fewer than 10 athletes. Thirty-two had a team of just one or two rowers.

Only nine other nations won gold. In comparison, 204 nations were represented in track and field competition at Rio’s Estadio Olimpico, and 47 nations won medals.

British efforts in the velodrome, where for the third Olympics on the bounce they ruled the boards, were fuelled by a budget over the four years from London of £30.2m, up even from the £26m they received in funding up to 2012.

In comparison, the US track cycling team – which won team pursuit silver behind Britain’s women, and saw Sarah Hammer once again push Trott hard for omnium gold, has only one full-time staff member, director Andy Sparks.

Then there is the decline of other nations who once battled with Britain for the upper reaches of the medal table, and frequently sat far higher.

In 2012, Russia finished fourth with 22 golds. They were third in 2008 and third again in 2004.

This summer, despite escaping a total ban on their athletes in the wake of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s McLaren Report, they finished with 19 golds for fourth, permitted to enter only one track and field athlete, Darya Klishina.

It is a remarkable depth and breadth of talent – a Games where 58-year-old Nick Skelton won a gold and 16-year-old gymnast Amy Tinkler grabbed a bronze, a fortnight where Jason Kenny won his sixth gold at the age of 28 and Mo Farah won his ninth successive global track title.

The abilities of those men and women has been backed up by similar aptitude in coaching and support.

In swimming there is Rebecca Adlington’s former mentor, Bill Furniss, who has taken a programme that won just one silver and two bronzes in London and, with a no-compromise strategy, taken them to their best haul at an Olympics since 1908.

In cycling, there has been the key hire of New Zealand sprint specialist Justin Grace, the coach behind Francois Pervis’ domination at the World Championships, a critical influence on Kenny, Callum Skinner, Becky James and Katy Marchant.

« We have got the talent in this country, and we know we can recruit and keep the very best coaches, sports scientists and sports medics, » says Nicholl.

« It is a system that provides the very best support for that talent. We do a lot in terms of people development. We are conscious when people are recruited to key positions as coaches they are not necessarily the finished article in their broader skills.

« We provide support so that coaches across sports can network and learn from each other. That improves their knowledge expertise and the support systems they’ve got. »

It is an intimidating thought for Britain’s competitors. After two decades of consistent improvement, Rio may not even represent the peak.

Sports that have propelled Britain up the medal table have received extra investment while others have had their funding cut altogether
Josh Halliday

15 August 2016

In the past 24 hours Team GB have rewritten their Olympic history, moving ahead of China into second place in the Rio 2016 medals table after winning a record-breaking five gold medals in a single day.
Team GB’s Olympic success: five factors behind their Rio medal rush

With Olympic champions in tennis, golf, gymnastics and cycling – and another assured in sailing – the team’s directors hailed national lottery funding and the legacy of London 2012 for the Rio goldrush. So how has funding in British sport changed in the run-up to Super Sunday?

UK Sport, which determines how public funds raised via the national lottery and tax are allocated to elite-level sport, has pledged almost £350m to Olympic and Paralympic sports between 2013 and 2017, up 11% on the run-up to London 2012.

Those sports that have fuelled the rise in Britain’s medal-table positions over the past eight years – athletics, boxing and cycling, for example – were rewarded with increased investment. “It’s a brutal regime, but it’s as crude as it is effective,” said Dr Borja Garcia, a senior lecturer in sports management and policy at Loughborough University.

Sports that failed to hit their 2012 medal target – including crowd-pleasers such as wrestling, table tennis and volleyball – either had their funding reduced or cut altogether. Has that affected their prospects in Rio? It may be too soon to tell, but so far swimming is the only sport that has won medals at this Olympics after having it funding cut post-2012.

The aim is quite simple: to ensure Great Britain becomes the first home nation to deliver more medals at the following away Games. As it stands after day nine on Sunday, Team GB has one more medal than at the equivalent stage in London – their most successful ever Games.

Swimming

Spearheaded by the gold medal-winning Adam Peaty, Team GB has already secured its biggest Olympic medal haul in the pool since 1984, but it was one of the elite sports to have its funding slashed from £25.1m to £20.8m after a disappointing London 2012, when its three medals missed the target of between five and seven.

With six medals so far in Rio – one gold and five silvers – it has already passed its target of five for this Olympic Games. Its national governing body, British Swimming, will hope to be rewarded for this success with an increase in funding before Tokyo 2020.

UK Sport funding for medal-winning Olympians is assured, but some of the clubs where they spend long hours training are struggling to survive. Peaty’s City of Derby swimming club was almost forced to close last year when two pools in the city shut down for nearly three months, its chairman, Peter Spink, said.

“If we hadn’t got the focus of the council back on to swimming, things would have got a lot worse for us,” he said. “Worst case, closure could have happened. I don’t think I felt we got that close fortunately but unless we did something drastic and worked our way through it then, if not closed, we would have been a very much diminished club.”

Steve Layton, the club’s secretary, credited the local authority for fixing a roof at one pool and reopening another that had previously been closed, but added that it was only a matter of time before one of the “not fit for purpose” facilities was permanently closed down.

The club is trying to raise sponsorship money through partnerships with local companies, he said, but has so far been unable to raise enough money to pay for coaches rather than rely on volunteers. The ultimate aim is to raise enough investment for an Olympic-standard 50m pool in Derby, so that the Adam Peatys of tomorrow are not confined to the city’s 25m pools.

“Swimming is not like football. It doesn’t draw the crowds and we are in times of austerity. We understand all that, but we are trying to get sponsorship to give us some support,” Layton said.

The grand rhetoric of an Olympic legacy after London 2012 did not add up to much for cities such as Derby, but Spink said he was hopeful now of more investment in swimming following Team GB’s success in Rio. “The legacy of the London Olympics was always a big thing. We saw that a little bit, but of late that has dwindled a bit. The issues we have in Derby demonstrate that there really wasn’t the appetite either in local or national government to fund sport in that way,” he said.

Cycling
Along with a knighthood for Bradley Wiggins, an increase in funding followed Team GB’s cycling success in London 2012. Their final tally of 12 medals exceeded the target of between six and 10, resulting in a boost to British Cycling’s coffers from £26m to £30.2m.

In Rio, Team GB has secured six medals – four gold and two silver – and smashed two world records, with both the women’s and men’s team pursuit taking gold. It is well on the way to reaching its final Rio target of between eight and 10 medals.

Max Whitlock’s heroics in the Olympics arena on Super Sunday ended a 116-year wait for a British gymnastics Olympic champion.

His double gold also boosted Team GB’s medal count in the sport to four, with Louis Smith winning silver in the pommel horse and Bryony Page becoming the first British woman to win an Olympic trampoline medal by claiming silver in Rio.

Having previously lost all of its elite-level funding, British gymnastics has experienced a steady increase in public investment over the past 20 years, from £5.9m at Sydney 2000 to £14.6m in the current cycle, after it benefited from a 36% funding increase after beating its medal target in London 2012.
Funding for individual athletes
Advertisement

In addition to the funding given to each sport’s governing body, some elite stars – described by UK Sport as “podium-level athletes – also qualify for individual funding to help with living costs.

Medallists at the Olympic Games, senior world championships and Paralympics gold medallists can receive up to £28,000 a year in athlete performance awards funded by the national lottery.

Sportsmen and women who finish in the top eight in the Olympics can receive up to £21,500 a year. Future stars, those expected to win medals on the world or Olympic stage within four years, can get up to £15,000 a year.
Has it worked?

Most experts agree that UK Sports “no compromise” funding approach has underpinned Great Britain’s rise from 36th in the medal table in Atlanta in 1996 to third at London 2012.

“It’s a very rational, cold approach. Medals have gone up. British elite sport is certainly booming. The returns of medals per pound is there,” said Garcia.

Some critics, however, say UK Sport’s approach has gone too far and is damaging grassroots sport. They have argued that focusing disproportionately on sports such as cycling, sailing and rowing has meant those such as basketball risk withering because they were unable to demonstrate they would win a medal at either of the next two Olympics.
Advertisement

“We can ask all the philosophical questions, which are valid. What about basketball, which has a lot of social potential in the inner cities? What about volleyball? What about fencing? Why focus on specific sports?” said Garcia.

“Participation is going down. Why do we invest all this money in all those medals? Just to get the medals? To get people active? To make Great Britain’s name known around the world? With a cold analysis of the objectives and the money invested, yes it has worked.

“I have some sympathy for UK Sport as an organisation. They were given the objectives and they delivered.”

In May, Sport England, which focuses on grassroots sport, unveiled a four-year strategy to target inactivity. More than a quarter of the population is officially defined as inactive because they do less than 30 minutes of activity a week, including walking.

The move is a lurch away from the earlier strategy, which was set before London 2012 and focused on getting more people to play more sport with only mixed results.

Severe cuts to local authority budgets are also squeezing resources at the grassroots level. Councils across England have been forced to make cuts since 2010, when grant funding for local authorities was cut by a fifth, more than twice the level of cuts to the rest of the UK public sector
Jazz Carlin celebrates after winning silver in the women’s 800m freestyle final.

Many smaller, older swimming pools are being closed at a time when more people are being inspired to get in the water, thanks in part to Team GB medal winners Jazz Carlin, Siobhan-Marie O’Connor and Peaty.

The Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) said this weekend that there had been a huge jump in the number of people searching online for their nearest leisure pool during the first few days of the Games.
Advertisement

Alison Clowes, the ASA’s head of media, said 80,000 people had used its “poolfinder” app between 5 and 11 August – almost double the rate for the same period in July – and the ASA was getting dozens of phone inquiries too. “We’ve already seen a boost from our Olympic successes, which is great,” she said.

Meanwhile, the average level of swimming proficiency among schoolchildren requires improvement. ASA research shows that 52% of children leave school unable to swim 25 metres unaided.

Jennie Price, the chief executive of Sport England, said: “Watching our athletes achieving great things in Rio is truly inspirational, particularly for young people. Whether it encourages them to get more active, try something new or even strive for gold themselves one day, Team GB is making a massive contribution to sport back home.

“A relatively small number of sports feature regularly on prime-time TV, so for many the Olympic Games is the moment that catapults them onto the screens of the nation. We need to capitalise on that, for example with programmes like Backing the Best where Sport England supports young talented athletes at the beginning of their sporting careers.

“There will be new Max Whitlocks and Kath Graingers out there who Sport England will support through our funding of the talent system, but most won’t reach those heights. Our main aim is making sure all young people get a positive experience when they try a sport and whatever they choose to do, come away with the good basic skills and having had a great time.”

6 — « too much power (in terms of resources) can be a curse, rather than a benefit, if it leads to overconfidence and inappropriate strategies for power conversion » (p.207)

7 —« values are an intrinsic part of American foreign policy » (p.218)

8 — « The twenty-firt century began with a very unequal distribution of power resources » (p.157)

9 — « describing power transition in the twenty-first century as an issue of American decline is inaccurate and misleading […] America is not in absolute decline, and it is likely to remain more powerful than any single state in the coming decades ». (p.203)

The awesome influence of Oxbridge, One Direction and the Premier League

The Economist

Jul 18th 2015

HOW many rankings of global power have put Britain at the top and China at the bottom? Not many, at least this century. But on July 14th an index of “soft power”—the ability to coax and persuade—ranked Britain as the mightiest country on Earth. If that was unexpected, there was another surprise in store at the foot of the 30-country index: China, four times as wealthy as Britain, 20 times as populous and 40 times as large, came dead last.

Diplomats in Beijing won’t lose too much sleep over the index, compiled by Portland, a London-based PR firm, together with Facebook, which provided data on governments’ online impact, and ComRes, which ran opinion polls on international attitudes to different countries. But the ranking gathered some useful data showing where Britain still has outsized global clout.

Britain scored highly in its “engagement” with the world, its citizens enjoying visa-free travel to 174 countries—the joint-highest of any nation—and its diplomats staffing the largest number of permanent missions to multilateral organisations, tied with France. Britain’s cultural power was also highly rated: though its tally of 29 UNESCO World Heritage sites is fairly ordinary, Britain produces more internationally chart-topping music albums than any other country, and the foreign following of its football is in a league of its own (even if its national teams are not). It did well in education, too—not because of its schools, which are fairly mediocre, but because its universities are second only to America’s, attracting vast numbers of foreign students.

Britain fared least well on enterprise, mainly because it spends a feeble 1.7% of GDP on research and development (South Korea, which came top, spends 4%). And the quality of its governance was deemed ordinary, partly because of a gender gap that is wider than that of most developed countries, as measured by the UN. Governance was the category that sank undemocratic China, whose last place was sealed by a section dedicated to digital soft-power—tricky to cultivate in a country that restricts access to the web. The political star of social media, according to the index, is Narendra Modi, India’s prime minister, whose Facebook page generates twice as many comments, shares and thumbs-ups as that of Barack Obama.

The index will cheer up Britain’s government, which has lately been accused of withdrawing from the world. But many of the assets that pushed Britain to the top of the soft-power table are in play. In the next couple of years the country faces a referendum on its membership of the EU; a slimmer role for the BBC, its prolific public broadcaster; and a continuing squeeze on immigration, which has already made its universities less attractive to foreign students. Much of Britain’s hard power was long ago given up. Its soft power endures—for now.

In an interview on Fox News on Monday, Donald Trump suggested that President Barack Obama was either weak, dumb, or nefarious, saying, “Look, we’re led by a man that either is not tough, not smart, or he’s got something else in mind.”

But President Obama’s work over the last eight years to reposition the U.S. as more diplomatic and less belligerent seems to be paying some dividends, at least according to a survey released today by the London PR firm Portland in partnership with Facebook.

In the Soft Power 30 report, an annual ranking of countries on their ability to achieve objectives through attraction and persuasion instead of coercion, the U.S. leapfrogged the U.K. and Germany to claim the top spot, while Canada, under its popular and photogenic new Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, jumped France to claim fourth place.

Based on a theory of global political power developed by Joseph Nye, a Harvard political science professor, the survey uses both polling and digital data to rank countries on more than 75 metrics gathered under the three pillars of soft power: political values, culture, and foreign policy.

According to survey author Jonathan McClory, the U.S.’s jump to the top spot had a lot to do with the fact that President Obama’s last year as Commander-in-Chief was “a busy one for diplomatic initiatives.”

“The President managed to complete his long-sought Iran Nuclear Deal, made progress on negotiating free trade agreements with partners across the Oceans Atlantic and Pacific, and re-established diplomatic relations with Cuba after decades of trying to isolate the Communist Caribbean Island. These major soft power plays have paid dividends for perceptions of the U.S. abroad,” the author wrote.

The report also praised U.S. contributions in the digital world, via Facebook FB0.81% , Twitter TWTR0.11% , and the like, and the fact that it has more universities in the global top 200 than any other country.

The report did admit that U.S.’s rise was a bit odd, though, at least under current circumstances.

“America topping the rankings this year is perhaps a strange juxtaposition to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, currently threatening to tear up long-held, bi-partisan principles of American foreign policy—like ending the U.S.’s stated commitment to nuclear non-proliferation,” the author wrote.

The U.K.’s slip from the top spot seemed to have more to do with U.S. strength than its own weakness. “The U.K. continues to boast significant advantages in its soft power resources,” the report notes. Indeed, U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron cited last year’s No. 1 ranking in the report as proof of his country’s international influence, the Financial Timesreports.

But, the survey adds, Brexit could have devastating effects: “No other country rivals the U.K.’s diverse range of memberships in the world’s most influential organisations. In this context, a risk exists that the U.K.’s considerable soft power clout would be significantly diminished should it vote to leave the European Union.”

The ranking includes several surprising countries, like Russia (27th place). “With its annual military parades and occasional encroachments into European air and naval space, soft power might not spring to mind when thinking about the Russian Federation,” McClory writes. But, the report notes, Russia’s investment in the global, multilingual TV channel RT, as well as its diplomatic work in Syria, seem to be paying dividends.

Argentina climbed onto the list in the 30th and final spot, spurred by optimism that new, reform-minded President Mauricio Macri would further integrate it into the global diplomatic community. It was the only Latin American country other than Brazil to make the list.

From Australia to Trinidad and Tobago, Queen Elizabeth II’s portrait has graced the currencies of 33 different countries — more than that of any other individual. Canada was the first to use the British monarch’s image, in 1935, when it printed the 9-year-old Princess on its $20 notes. Over the years, 26 different portraits of Elizabeth have been used in the U.K. and its current and former colonies, dominions and territories — most of which were commissioned with the direct purpose of putting them on banknotes. However, some countries, such as Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), Malta and Fiji, used already existing portraits. The Queen is frequently shown in formal crown-and-scepter attire, although Canada and Australia prefer to depict her in a plain dress and pearls. And while many countries update their currencies to reflect the Queen’s advancing age, others enjoy keeping her young. When Belize redesigned its currency in 1980, it selected a portrait that was already 20 years old.

Voir de même:

The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth II… as they appear on World Banknotes
Elizabeth Alexandra Mary of the House of Windsor has been Queen of the United Kingdom since 1952, when she succeeded her father, King George VI, to the throne. Queen Elizabeth II, as the head of the Commonwealth of Nations, is also Head of State to many countries in the Commonwealth. Although She remains Head of State to many countries, over the years many member nations of the Commonwealth have adopted constitutions whereby The Queen is no longer Head of State.

Queen Elizabeth’s portrait undoubtedly appeared more often on the banknotes of Great Britain’s colonies, prior to the colonies gaining independence and the use of her portrait is not as common as it once was. However, there are a number of nations who retain her as Head of State and she is still portrayed on the banknotes of numerous countries. The Queen has been depicted on the banknotes of thirty-three issuing authorities, as well as on an essay prepared for Zambia. The countries and issuing authorities that have used portraits of The Queen are (in alphabetical order):Australia
Bahamas
Belize
Bermuda
British Caribbean Territories
British Honduras
Canada
Cayman Islands
Ceylon
Cyprus
East African Currency Board
East Caribbean States
Falkland Islands
Fiji
Gibraltar
Great Britain (Bank of England)
Guernsey
Hong Kong
Isle of Man
Jamaica
Jersey
Malaya and North Borneo
Malta
Mauritius
New Zealand
Rhodesia and Nyasaland
Rhodesia
Saint Helena
Scotland (Royal Bank of Scotland)
Seychelles
Solomon Islands
Southern Rhodesia
Trinidad and Tobago
Zambia (essay only)

Arguably, there is some duplication in this list, depending on how it is viewed. Should British Honduras and Belize be counted as one issuing authority? If not, then perhaps Belize should be broken into ‘Government of Belize’, ‘Monetary Authority of Belize’ and ‘Central Bank of Belize’. Similar arguments can be made for the amalgamation of British Caribbean Territories and the East Caribbean States, or for splitting Southern Rhodesia into ‘Southern Rhodesia Currency Board’ and ‘Central Africa Currency Board’. Such decisions can be made by collectors for their own reference, but this list of countries should satisfy most collectors.

In total, there have been twenty-six portraits used on the various banknotes bearing the likeness of Queen Elizabeth. This study identifies the twenty-six individual portraits that have been used and also identifies the numerous varieties of the engravings, which are based on the portraits. The varieties of portraits on the banknotes are due, in the main, to different engravers, but there are some varieties due to different photographs from a photographic session being selected by different printers or issuing authorities.

The list that follows this commentary identifies the twenty-six portraits, the photographer or artist responsible for the portrait (where possible), and the date the portrait was executed. Portraits used on the banknotes come from one of several sources. Most are official photographs that are distributed regularly by Buckingham Palace for use in the media and in public places. Some of the portraits have been especially commissioned, usually by the issuing authority, although, in the case of the two paintings adapted for use on the notes (Portraits 9 and 19), it was not the issuing authority that commissioned the paintings. In the case of the portraits used by the Bank of England, a number of the portraits have been drawn by artists without specific reference to any single portrait.

It is interesting to observe that many portraits of Her Majesty have been used some years after they were originally executed. There is often a delay in presenting a portrait on a banknote that is to be issued to the public, because of the time required to produce a note from the design stage. Therefore, it is unusual to see a portrait appear on a banknote in less than two years after the original portrait was executed.

However, some portraits are introduced onto banknotes many years after they were taken. Portrait 9, which is based on the famous painting by Pietro Annigoni, was completed in 1955 but did not appear on a banknote until 1961. The last countries to introduce this portrait to their notes were the Seychelles and Fiji, who placed the portrait on their 1968 issues. Similarly, Portrait 17 was taken at the time of Her Majesty’s Silver Jubilee in 1977 and made its first appearance on the notes of New Zealand in 1981, but it was only introduced to the notes of the Cayman Islands in 1991. Perhaps the longest delay in using a portrait belongs to Belize. Portrait 13 was taken in 1960 and first used on the New Zealand banknotes in 1967, which is in itself a reasonable delay. Belize introduced the image to its banknotes in 1980, some twenty years after the portrait was taken.

Apart from the portrait of Queen Elizabeth as a young girl on the Canadian 20-dollar notes of 1935, the earliest portrait used on the banknotes is Portrait 6, which appears on the Canadian notes issued in 1954. The portrait used for the Canadian notes was taken in 1951 when Elizabeth was yet to accede to the throne. Undoubtedly there was a touch of nationalism is the choice of the portrait, as the photographer, Yousuf Karsh, was a Canadian. Karsh was born in Turkish Armenia but found himself working in Quebec at the age of sixteen for his uncle, who was a portrait photographer. Karsh became one of the great portrait photographers of the twentieth century and took numerous photographs of The Queen, although this is his only portrait of Her Majesty to appear on a banknote.

Portrait 6 is particularly famous because the original engraving of The Queen, which appeared on the 1954 Canadian issues, showed a ‘devil’s head’ in her hair. After causing some embarrassment to the Bank of Canada, the image was re-engraved and the notes reprinted. Notes with the modified portrait appeared from 1955.

While there have been some very famous photographers to have taken The Queen’s portrait, Dorothy Wilding is the photographer to have taken most portraits for use on world banknotes. Wilding had been a court photographer for King George VI and many of the images of the King that can be found on banknotes, coins and postage stamps throughout the Commonwealth were copied from her photographs. On the accession of Queen Elizabeth, Wilding was granted the same duty by the new monarch. Shortly after Elizabeth became Queen many photographs of the new monarch were taken by Wilding. These photographs were required for images that could be used on coins, stamps, banknotes and for official portraits that could be hung in offices and public places.

In her autobiography, In Pursuit of Perfection, Wilding says of the images she created:
‘Of all the stamps of Queen Elizabeth II reproduced from my photographs, I think the two most outstanding are the one-cent North Borneo, and our own little everyday 2½d. It is interesting to see that the Group of Fiji Islanders have chosen to use for some of their stamps the head taken from the full length portrait of Annigoni … and for the others, one of my standard portraits which have been commonly used throughout the Colonial stamp issue of the present reign.’
From her description of the postage stamps, it is possible that Wilding was unaware her images were also being used on banknotes. The image on the North Borneo stamp, preferred by Wilding, is very similar to Portrait 3 but taken at a slightly different angle. The image on the English 2½d stamp is similarly akin to Portrait 4.

Anthony Buckley was another prolific photographer of The Queen, and his work is well represented in the engravings of Her Majesty on the banknotes. An English photographer, most of Buckley’s portraits were taken in the 1960s and 1970s. His work has also been adapted for use on numerous postage stamps throughout the world.

One of the interesting aspects to the portraits of Queen Elizabeth, which appear on world banknotes, is the style of portrait chosen by each issuing authority. How does each issuing authority wish to portray The Queen? Some of the portraits are formal, showing The Queen as a regal person, and some show her in relatively informal dress. While most issuing authorities have chosen to show The Queen in formal attire, the Bank of Canada has always shown The Queen without any formal regalia and always without a tiara. It has been suggested that this may be due to a desire to appease the French elements of Canada.

Australia originally opted to show Her Majesty in formal attire. Portrait 5 shows a profile of The Queen wearing the State Diadem and Portrait 12 shows Her Majesty in the Regalia of the Order of the Garter. When preparations were being made to commission a portrait for the introduction of decimal currency into Australia, the Chairman of the Currency Note Design Group advised that, for the illustration of The Queen (Portrait 12), the ‘General effect [is] to be regal, rather than « domestic » …’ However, the most recent portrait used on Australian banknotes (Portrait 21) shows The Queen in informal attire, perhaps even displaying a touch of ‘domesticity’. This is possibly a reflection of changing attitudes to the monarchy in Australia.

While Canada and Australia may opt to use informal images of The Queen, most issuing authorities continue to depict Her Majesty regally. In many portraits she is depicted wearing the Regalia of the Order of the Garter. In other portraits she is often dressed formally, wearing Her Royal Family Orders. In most portraits she is wearing some of her famous jewellery. In the following descriptions of the portraits, various tiaras, diadems, necklaces and jewellery worn by Her Majesty are described, although not all items have been identified.

Of interest, in the following descriptions, are the differences observed in the same portraits engraved by different security printers. In several instances the same portrait has been use by different security printers and the rendition of the portrait is noticeably variant for the notes prepared by the different companies. Portrait 4 gives a good example of the different renditions of the Dorothy Wilding portrait by Bradbury Wilkinson, Thomas De La Rue, Waterlow and Sons, and Harrisons.

Another example can be seen in Portrait 16, which is used on banknotes issued by Canada and the Solomon Islands. In the engraving used by the Solomon Islands, prepared by Thomas De La Rue, The Queen looks severe, but on the Canadian notes prepared by the British American Bank Note Company and by the Canadian Bank Note Company there is a suggestion of a smile. The Canadian notes achieve the difference by including a subtle shaded area on Her Majesty’s left cheek, just to the right of her mouth.

While there have been thirty-three issuing authorities to have prepared banknotes bearing The Queen’s portrait (excluding the Zambian essay), Fiji has used the most number of portraits, being six in total. Three issuing authorities have used five portraits: the Bank of England, Bermuda, and Canada.

The following list of portraits is ordered by the date on which the banknotes, on which the portraits appear, were first released into circulation, rather than the date on which the portraits were executed. Where the portrait was used by more than one issuing authority, the list of issuing authorities is ordered by the date on which the authority first used the portrait. Next to each issuing authority are the reference numbers from the Standard Catalog of World Paper Money (SCWPM, Volume 2, Ninth Edition and Volume 3, Eighth Edition) that indicate those notes of the issuing authority which bear the portrait.

Queen Elizabeth II has, of course, been pictured on British currency for much of her reign, but she has also appeared on the money of various British Commonwealth states and Crown dependencies. With such a long reign and so many nations issuing money with her image on it over the years, there are enough banknote portraits to construct a sort of aging timeline for the Queen. The age given below for each portrait is her age when the picture was made, which is not always the same as the year the banknote was issued (more information can be found at this interesting site maintained by international banknote expert Peter Symes). Here is Elizabeth through the years, on money.